dungeonsfandomcom-20200223-history
DnDWiki talk:Introduction
Why? What purpose do all these pages really serve? Is it necessary to have an entire page devoted to the god of wisdom from a single pantheon of a single campaign setting as created by a single publisher? I would understand having a Al-Qadim campaign setting page, with subpages that have this material. Is the goal to move pages like DnDWiki:Kor to Canon:Al-Qadim campaign setting/Zakharan pantheon, or are we flat out moving DnDwiki:Kor to Canon:Kor? --The Badger 21:02, June 3, 2010 (UTC) :Unless somebody can actually write a credible article entirely on Kor, then yes, it will become a subpage. Surgo 21:25, June 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Adding on: by default, things should be subpages. But that can be worried about later. Right now we just need to actually import all the articles, which takes a while if you do it selectively instead of broadly. Once they're imported we can start pruning. Surgo 21:27, June 3, 2010 (UTC) :::Maybe one could decide, if a subject deserves an article or a subpage along the lines of the 3 sentence rule from Forgotten Realms Wiki? DnDWiki:Kor, however, is so short, because we decided at D&D Wiki that subjects covered by another, campaign setting specific wiki should only consist of a very short summary and a link. :::Personally, if I was looking for information on Kor, I would be happy if I typed in "Kor" and came out at a the article Kor (that is Canon:Kor, via redirect). Daranios 16:39, June 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::Given what was said by TarkisFlux (whose opinion I tend to trust a lot more than my own) on my talk page, I think a rule like that is really the best way to go about it. I'd be more inclined for a "two paragraph rule" than "three sentence rule", but I'll let other people with better opinions on this sort of thing chime in first. Surgo 19:54, June 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::1 or 2 real paragraphs is probably fine as a in-article / subpage limit. The distinction for something to get it own article, regardless of size, is probably best left to whether something is reasonably expected to be used in multiple larger articles or not. Which is pretty much what the FR wiki's 3 sentence rule is, just bent towards longer articles somewhat. :::::I don't think that's at all incompatible with your search desire Daranios. You can already search Kor and have results come up, and if you restrict your search to the canon namespace you're going to be very likely to get real hits near the top. If that's insufficient for some reason, we can also do a kor redirect / disambig page that just takes you to an anchor in the article where kor is written up (at least I'm pretty sure redirects handle anchors... let's go test! - Yeah, they do). - TarkisFlux 21:28, June 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Sounds fair enough to me. If in the end the question would be to decide between Canon:Al-Qadim campaign setting/Zakharan pantheon and Canon:Zakharan pantheon I would go for the shorter one. :::::: Left is the question, how to deal with subjects covered by other, campaign setting specific wikis? Daranios 10:31, June 5, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Hrm... I'd actually rather have the shorter ones as well. Which means no super-giganto setting articles that contain everything as subpages, and that's probably fine. Just need to cover it with Categories or something instead. I'm not sure how Nav is going to work for these though (not that I had any idea in the first place, but it just crossed my mind). :::::::I'd still be happy doing summaries of campaign setting bits that are covered in more depth in their own communities and linking to them for more information. Which would set us as a gateway / hub of sorts. I think that's what you were acting as before, but I'm not clear on that actually. - TarkisFlux 16:03, June 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::We did that just like you said, aiming for an short article for each article in the other wikis - which we were far away from, naturally. Please have a look here for explanation, too. Daranios 11:25, June 6, 2010 (UTC)